« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Bout that Spit LFIX....  (Read 1899 times)

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2004, 08:41:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak


The only Spitfire that will give an La-7 a run for it is a Mk XIV on 150 octane at +25lbs boost.


Don`t mix the Mk IX`s maximum boost with that of the MkXIV`s.

Only the Merlin 66s were cleared for +25 lbs boosts.

There`s absolutely no evidence the Mk XIV`s Griffon 65 to ever been cleared for more than +21 lbs during the war - even the summer 1945 tests of a Mk 21 with the same series Griffon engine state the present maximum boost at the time is +21 lbs. Which makes the case pretty clear.

See here also:



The best figures for the Mk XIV at +18 lbs are 358mph at SL. 18lbs refers to 1840 BHP at SL under RAM.

The power output was 2040 BHP at +21lbs (rammed). The speeds by estimation and using the aerodynamics calculator would be 370-371 mph at +21lbs.

That`s still a quite slower than the La-7 (383mph). In any case, tangling those Lavochkins at low altitudes is silly.. you only need to get above 2000m, and their performance fells off rapidly, especially the climb. And 1-2000m can be climb in no time with a good climber.
Logged

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2004, 03:35:40 PM »
Isegrim,

At +25lbs it did 390mph at sea level.  The graph is out there somewhere.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2004, 09:44:35 AM »
An old P51 jock once told me that those boosted up Spittys were a tad faster at low alt than the P51C.
In doodle-bug chasing the P51C needed to have a little more alt, while the Spitty would actually be able to outrun the doodlebug.
Some pilots even tipped them over.
But that's just pilot accounts.....
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2004, 11:14:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
An old P51 jock once told me that those boosted up Spittys were a tad faster at low alt than the P51C.
In doodle-bug chasing the P51C needed to have a little more alt, while the Spitty would actually be able to outrun the doodlebug.
Some pilots even tipped them over.
But that's just pilot accounts.....


Yeah.  Would ever listen to an actual pilot when you could find a graph somewhere? :)
Including a drawing from 41 Squadron Spit XII pilot, Terry Spencer's logbook.  Done by Tom Slack, it commemorates Terry's tipping of a V1 with his clipped wing Spit XII, summer 44.

Dan/Slack
Logged
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Flyboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2004, 11:23:47 AM »
whats the performence difference between the 109g10 and g14?
Logged

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2004, 11:44:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Flyboy
whats the performence difference between the 109g10 and g14?


G-10 by default built with large supercharger and a high altitude engine. The G-14 had two versions, the G-14 with low/medium altitude DB 605AM, and the G-14/ASM or G-14/ASC which featured a very similiar high altitude engine as the G-10, and was practically identical to it in performance.

Basically the common G-14 has somewhat better performance than the G-10 at low altitude up to around 4-5000m, above that the G-10 is MUCH superior.

Specs:

G-10 :
562 km/h at SL, 690km/h at 7500m, 662 km/h at 10 000m.. (early engine type, low boost)
~580 km/h at SL, ~700km/h at 6000m, 690km/h at 7500m, 662 km/h at 10 000m.. (late engine type, high boost)

G-14 (DB 605AM) :
568 km/h at SL, 665 km/h at 5000m, 600 km/h at 10 000m.
G-14/ASM (DB 605ASM):
560 km/h at SL, 680 km/h at 7500m, ~650-660 km/h at 10 000m.

The speed difference in low levels despite the similiar low altitude powers in mainly due to the broad blade propellor developed for high altitude on the G-10 and G-14/ASM.
Logged

Offline Flyboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2004, 02:42:18 PM »
so, why did the g14 exist? i mean the g10 seems to be much batter :confused:
Logged

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2004, 08:02:45 PM »
Flyboy, you have to understand that the G-14 came before the G-10. It's sort of like the Spit9 and the Spit8,
Logged

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2004, 04:11:20 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Flyboy
so, why did the g14 exist? i mean the g10 seems to be much batter :confused:


To standardize production. The G-14 was basically a G-6 with, just with all the niceties that were added with time to the G-6s (MW50, Erla hood etc.) were standardized and installed in the factory. G-6s were continued to be produced parellel to them, in fact, there was little if any difference between a late production G-6 and G-14. G-14=up to date G-6 with the latest gimnicks.

The G-10 was also basically a G-6 airframe, just with a better engine, that appeared after the G-14 was being produced. The K series were to replace them all ASAP with a single airframe, single or two types of engine (DB 605 D and 605 L).

The G-14 appeared in somewhere Spring 1944, athe G-10 only in October (in fact, the G-10 appeared AFTER the 109 K-4...). G-8 appeared also earlier. :)

So the "correct" order is G-12(trainer), G-8(recce G-6), G-14, K-4, G-10 IIRC . :D
« Last Edit: March 24, 2004, 05:11:18 AM by VO101_Isegrim »
Logged

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2004, 04:28:25 AM »
Oh no! the thread is being hijacked by luftweenies!  Quick! get the naked Carmen Electra poster so we can scare them off!!
Logged
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2004, 05:58:23 AM »
Naked Carmen Electra !!

 Where???!!!! :eek:
Logged

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2004, 06:30:06 AM »
UH?! Where Furby?!
Logged
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2004, 07:46:04 AM »
Why wouldn't HTC later on give us a boosted up Spitty?
Uh, the only explanation I can think off is that it's too good, and will therefor upset game balance....
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2004, 08:22:52 AM »
Probarly because another spit would just be yet another target for our beloved Butcher Bird. :D
Logged
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Flyboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
Bout that Spit LFIX....
« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2004, 09:14:06 AM »
thnks guys :)

i was thinking about that possibility but i thought the germans were more organized then that :o
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »